[Technology]

I identify two main concerns; physical security and resource security. Support for a certain level of deregulation weighs the fears of bad outcomes against the benefits, and the two main categories of bad outcomes are that people will slaughter each other without central authority, and that people won't be able to have the resources they need to survive.

Physical security:
-If A: armor technology progresses to a higher level than ballistic technology's ability to penetrate armor, and B: human beings adopt transhumanism en masse and are therefore able to compose their bodies out of such technology, then we can C: get closer on an asymptote to anarchy. If propellants reach a ceiling and armor reaches a ceiling whereby propellants don't provide the power density necessary to defeat armor (likely relying on advanced bulk nanoproperties), and we are in a transhuman paradigm with a low cost of upgrade, then the potential population philosophically amenable to anarchy will increase because it will include people who worry about gun control who now have less to worry about. If propellants win the race, then support will decrease however.
-If people become more peaceful, whether through cultural change or some sort of eugenic change, such as designer babies/passive positive eugenics, then support for anarchy is also likely to increase, as it is less dangerous, and the benefits versus authoritarianism become worth the risk for more people.
-Healthcare becoming less costly.
-The human body becoming easier to fix/more modifiable.


Resource security:
-If all people can easily find food and water, and possess shelter, then support is also likely to increase. If the paradigm of the automation of labor ends with free availability and replicability of that labor, then anarchy's support base grows, due to the ending of human toil by this mechanism also ending stratified survival based capitalist relations, and governmental taxation to fund the state labor force, among other elements of high statism.
-If the raw materials which go into making most of the things we need become more common - as we find replacements for rare earths and other important components for modern electronics - then this is promising for a subsidiarity based route to liberty. Carbon, with its allotropes like graphene and nanotubes, is seeming to be the material of one thousand and one uses, so developments may be headed in that direction, tentatively. Properly fulfilled, this paradigm would allow very local sourcing of necessary materials, and end gigantic supply chains involving a myriad of absentee relations. In this way, the necessary authority of society can become more "municipal", and we can advance closer to the infinity line of anarchy.

[Killborn]

True Anarchy is a liminal state; what brings it about comes via the cascade, and what brings it down is the following tributary. Out of anarchy comes order and out of order surfaces anarchy.

Or in other words:

Hear the Synergy in Distortion. This is the fate of all principalities of Man.

[Eran]

You fall into the same myth propagated by rulers for generations, namely that government is required, at least under normal circumstances, to secure the physical and resource security (i.e. protection of property rights in one's person and external property).

We don't need new technological innovations to make the elimination of government possible. We just need to change the cultural "software" running society. And not in a utopian, unlikely way ("men will work towards the common good and derive their satisfaction from serving each other"), but rather into a form broadly consistent with many that already animate societies today ("force can only be used following the law", "disputes ought to be resolved peacefully", etc.)

[Killborn]

Government is inevitable. People will always assert dominance over other people.

[anticlimacus]

Government is inevitable. People will always assert dominance over other people.

Feudalism and the institution of the state Church was once considered inevitable.

People have been able to transform their conditions in ways that they have never been able to before: e.g. combating racism, sexism, instituting rights of free speech and association, etc. This of course does not mean there is never a backlash against this by state power, however there is now currently more potential for moving towards a free society than ever before (NOTE: I do not mean to suggest that we are in a progressive society or that we are anywhere close to a free society). Consequentially, as Chomsky, Orwell, Gramsci, and others have often noted these conditions require new techniques of control which are cultural. Mass campaigns of propaganda, modeled after big business replaces the regular use of armed force on much of the population.

We don't need new technological innovations to make the elimination of government possible. We just need to change the cultural "software" running society. And not in a utopian, unlikely way ("men will work towards the common good and derive their satisfaction from serving each other"), but rather into a form broadly consistent with many that already animate societies today ("force can only be used following the law", "disputes ought to be resolved peacefully", etc.)

Indeed. See--right wing and left wing libertarians can agree on some things!

[Technology]

We don't need new technological innovations to make the elimination of government possible. We just need to change the cultural "software" running society. And not in a utopian, unlikely way ("men will work towards the common good and derive their satisfaction from serving each other"), but rather into a form broadly consistent with many that already animate societies today ("force can only be used following the law", "disputes ought to be resolved peacefully", etc.)

But people won't accept the new "software" unless they can be assured that the new form of society isn't more dangerous than the current one. We have high levels of low accountability centralized power today because that's what most people think is necessary for society to survive. You can make all sorts of arguments about the "free market", or "free association" on the other side, but you'll never make headway without something tangible, some actual mechanism, which proves a libertarian society can work.

Technology is the only thing which can fulfill ideological aims, since if the existing structure of the world is ill suited to certain ends, that structure can change through technological progress until it is. The ideological problem for anarchists of the left-right spectrum is that they focus on how people should organize to the exclusion of what tools need to be available to fulfill the goal.

Government must not be merely challenged morally, but made superfluous.

You fall into the same myth propagated by rulers for generations, namely that government is required, at least under normal circumstances, to secure the physical and resource security (i.e. protection of property rights in one's person and external property).

I think that there's a lot of evidence to back up what you call a myth. Governments have been pretty constant throughout history, and they usually become more authoritarian in times of economic turmoil. There is a strong game theory problem here, where even if once the claims of kings were vacuous, they became legitimized through people's very belief in them; if people believe in government, then the people will need the government they prefer to protect them from the people who want a government they don't prefer. Once one man wields the cudgel of state, others want it too, and so groups rally or oppose him to ensure that "their man" is to the one cracking heads.

Only a materialistic approach can tackle this problem. If people believe that government is necessary because they don't want to be shot or go hungry, whether that is mistaken or not is immaterial. The practical result is that their support for government can be ill challenged by appeals to morality or by suggesting that everyone can simply adopt Capitalism™ or Socialism™ and power through the apparent "uncanny valley" zones in which both mysteriously maximize authority... No! We have seen that this has failed.

Telling people their objections are illegitimate cannot work alone. If someone is worried that they will starve without government, then the answer is to find a technical solution to food poverty that negates the need for taxation funded human labor in running the state programs in the first place. In this example, the answer is ever more advanced robotic labor and automation; generally the answer for each objection is material, and technological development is the only way to allow the bulk of the mainstream political spectrum to feel that they would actually benefit from a more anarchistic world.

Government is inevitable. People will always assert dominance over other people.

I agree, which is why I'm not an anarchist, and only ever speak of approaching anarchy, not ever reaching it. What I will object to here is the implicit suggestion that there are not reasons why people seek (violent) dominance over others, which can be more or less addressed, thereby altering the level of violent domination in society. There is a historical trend for this, as states have most often become more authoritarian during hard times.

[SolarCross]

Amazonian Indians, Highlanders of Papua New Guinea and many others beg to differ. If anarchy (of the non-chaotic kind) can be accomplished by people with stone age tech why on earth would you think you need sci-fi tech as minimum requirement?

There is no such thing as resource security or physical security, YOUR DEATH IS INEVITABLE, and that will be the end of all your fears of not having enough and not getting hurt. True liberty comes from the conquest of your own fear and craving, nothing else. Only a fearless person is ungovernable.

[Technology]

Amazonian Indians, Highlanders of Papua New Guinea and many others beg to differ. If anarchy (of the non-chaotic kind) can be accomplished by people with stone age tech why on earth would you think you need sci-fi tech as minimum requirement? :?:

Because the complexity of production and society grew such that the myriad of new problems created caused the emergence of the state. People internalized the value of the state, and now view it as necessary. In order for this to change, there must be an alternative which fulfills exactly the same things people consider beneficial as occurs under the statist society (minus the coercion).

There is no such thing as resource security or physical security, YOUR DEATH IS INEVITABLE, and that will be the end of all your fears of not having enough and not getting hurt. True liberty comes from the conquest of your own fear and craving, nothing else. Only a fearless person is ungovernable.

Then there will always be governments because people are always afraid. If you want liberty through defeating your own fear, then that is not a political philosophy which can applied to people in general, but a personal philosophy of the self as outlaw.

[SolarCross]

Because the complexity of production and society grew such that the myriad of new problems created caused the emergence of the state. People internalized the value of the state, and now view it as necessary. In order for this to change, there must be an alternative which fulfills exactly the same things people consider beneficial as occurs under the statist society (minus the coercion).

The alternative is trade and charity, that's it, it does everything you want it to and better and it always has.

Then there will always be governments because people are always afraid. If you want liberty through defeating your own fear, then that is not a political philosophy which can applied to people in general, but a personal philosophy of the self as outlaw.

To the law of heaven I am perfectly dutiful, it is the political people who are the true outlaws.

[Killborn]

I'm not saying "anarchy" can't be achieved. I'm just saying that it won't be perpetual.

[Nunt]

I'm not saying "anarchy" can't be achieved. I'm just saying that it won't be perpetual.

Nothing is perpetual. That doesn't matter. What does matter is whether there are forces within society that tend to stabilize a certain state. Some people will try to assert dominance over others. It is in the interest of those who believe in anarchy to develop the norms and institutions to stop that from happening. Norms and institutions can be very important.

For example: grant the power of supreme commander to an african head of state and you will likely end up with a corrupt dictatorship. Do the same in the US and their are societal norms at work to prevent the president from abusing his power (even though I'm sure some would like to abuse this power).

If we can develop norms that keeps the worlds most formidable army in check (a monopoly army that is unchecked by any physical power and can bring total destruction to everyone it chooses). If we can keep that in check, why wouldn't we be able to keep decentralized pockets of people trying to achieve dominance in check?

[KlassWar]

Government is inevitable. People will always assert dominance over other people.

Government isn't really inevitable: You just need to solve class contradictions (by dismantling and/or liquidating the parasitic classes) before it can be done away with.

[Harmattan]

-If people become more peaceful, whether through cultural change or some sort of eugenic change, such as designer babies/passive positive eugenics, then support for anarchy is also likely to increase, as it is less dangerous, and the benefits versus authoritarianism become worth the risk for more people.

I was going to say that it is not a matter of physical resources but a matter of human beings. But if you plan to forcefully sterilize, abort or transform all of the population of course... Let's just hope that we never encounter an extra-terrestrial intelligence after that or they will have a good laugh enslaving this bunch of brainwashed hippies unable of any violence, envy, jealousy, domination or other negative feelings. And I wonder what kind of civilization will consider Care Bears as the pinnacle of the arts.

[Killborn]

There are constants, Nunt. Selfishness and bullying is a primal urge.

[Eran]

Perhaps. But institutions and culture clearly make a huge difference. The level of physical bullying is very different in tribal societies, feudal Japan or modern-day Switzerland, despite all humans being inflicted with this primal urge.

The question isn't whether bullying or, indeed, criminality can be eradicated, but rather whether the institutions of society need to embody aggression (initiation of force) as a legitimised form of action.

Male humans have sexual urges which, in some cases, result in rape. However, rape is rightly considered criminal and the resources of society are directed towards fighting it. Consequently, rape is relatively rare (though still too common - I am not complaisant).

Politically-cloaked aggression, however, is considered legitimate and is thus not opposed.

If we changed our cultural attitudes towards such aggression we will not eliminate it altogether, but we can reach a point where such aggression is treated as the criminal act that it is, and the resources of society can be aimed at minimising it.

[Harmattan]

Perhaps. But institutions and culture clearly make a huge difference. The level of physical bullying is very different in tribal societies, feudal Japan or modern-day Switzerland, despite all humans being inflicted with this primal urge.

Yes, nowadays domination is only allowed to be enforced through voluntary financial transaction, something that is considered to be perfectly fair. Also known as "so you want a wage, then be my bitch". The reason for this change is that whoever resorts to violence nowadays will be punished by legal violence and put in jail where he will be forcefully sodomized.

So two points:
a) Domination didn't disappear, it just uses money.
b) Violence is only contained by the legal violence monopoly.

[Technology]

I was going to say that it is not a matter of physical resources but a matter of human beings. But if you plan to forcefully sterilize, abort or transform all of the population of course... Let's just hope that we never encounter an extra-terrestrial intelligence after that or they will have a good laugh enslaving this bunch of brainwashed hippies unable of any violence, envy, jealousy, domination or other negative feelings. And I wonder what kind of civilization will consider Care Bears as the pinnacle of the arts.

No. I don't plan for any of that. What I'm getting at is more a description than a plan of action. If people's net voluntary eugenic actions over time resulted in a less aggressive and fearful populace, then day to day living would be more peaceful. A less aggressive populace isn't necessarily a populace unwilling to defend itself.

I personally think there is thin chance of this however, and it's far more likely that humans become tougher than it is that people converge on begetting less pre-emptive and fearful offspring.

Yes, nowadays domination is only allowed to be enforced through voluntary financial transaction, something that is considered to be perfectly fair. Also known as "so you want a wage, then be my bitch". The reason for this change is that whoever resorts to violence nowadays will be punished by legal violence and put in jail where he will be forcefully sodomized.

So two points:
a) Domination didn't disappear, it just uses money.
b) Violence is only contained by the legal violence monopoly.

Indeed, but given that mass capitalism cannot pass through the automation barrier (automation ultimately means full unemployment means no disposable income means no profits), a populace free from human toil may find freedom in municipal socialism. Any techno-capitalistic processes will be pushed away from the basic essentials of life, as these are now provided through closed loop automation.

[Killborn]

We still have to conquer space so some central authority will always be needed.

[Technology]

We still have to conquer space so some central authority will always be needed.

Why do we have to conquer space? An arbitrary level of authority is not needed for this, unless you demand it be done on some arbitrarily quick time table.

I agree that a central authority will always be needed, but that is due to the necessity of monocentric law (polycentric law meaning conflicts over the foundations of society), not arbitrary progressive goals. What is more libertarian, closer to the unreachable absolute of anarchy, however, is a monocentric law that sees fit and is able to set as few (but sharp) ground rules as possible, and lets society organically grow within that framework.

[Eran]

Yes, nowadays domination is only allowed to be enforced through voluntary financial transaction, something that is considered to be perfectly fair. Also known as "so you want a wage, then be my bitch". The reason for this change is that whoever resorts to violence nowadays will be punished by legal violence and put in jail where he will be forcefully sodomized.

So two points:
a) Domination didn't disappear, it just uses money.
b) Violence is only contained by the legal violence monopoly.

There is no 'Domination' associated with voluntary financial transactions, unless it is voluntary domination. Being voluntary, it is generally morally unexceptional (this is a slight over-statement).

The relationship between employee and employer is mutually advantageous. Both sides gain, as is the case with every transaction.

There is, however, violence in today's society. That violence is associated with all non-voluntary laws, commands, regulations and other government edicts. It is only government officers who have the power to initiate force against innocent, peaceful people.

Indeed, but given that mass capitalism cannot pass through the automation barrier (automation ultimately means full unemployment means no disposable income means no profits), a populace free from human toil may find freedom in municipal socialism. Any techno-capitalistic processes will be pushed away from the basic essentials of life, as these are now provided through closed loop automation.

Full automation will not eliminate the need and desire for private property. Freedom doesn't require (or is even allowed by) socialism. If you do reach nirvana whereby all human wants can be provided by technology, why would you want or need socialism? Why not allow people to own the (abundant) resources made available through technology?